On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Ian McLeod wrote:
> Ian,
>
> As someone who has struggled with the 4.0 pre-releases for several months
> now, I'd certainly love to see someone take over the role of maintainer.
> All the better if that person happened to have the first name "Ian". ;-)
>
Great. Thanks for your support.
And by coincidence my mothers maiden name is McColl.
> I have also been experimenting with a few patches to the existing pre10
> code, mainly to deal with submounts that use NIS as the source for their
> maps. I'd be very interested in hearing more about the
> changes/improvements you've made, both in the userspace and kernel
> components.
Cool.
Submounts. That's where I started. This is painful yes.
I am still testing/debugging my latest changes. I thought I was done
(several times now) but I am now in the hard to find and fix phase. I
would be happy to send you a copy of the patches if you think you would
find them useful and understand that they are not quite ready for
release. Maybe you could do a little testing in your environment to see
what other bugs can be driven out.
The implementation with both the daemon and kernel module patch includes:
1) Understands direct mount maps in file, NIS and LDAP repositories. In
fact it breaks up the direct map into separate top level directory
submounts that belong to the daemon that owns the map.
2) LDAP understands the usual automountMap type schema as well as the
nisMap schema. Basically I merged the Redhat autofs v3 patches and recast
the LDAP bits into my direct map framework.
3) ghosting of the indirect and direct map autofs filesystem. This is
essentially browseable automount directories with late mounting. In theory
this probably should not work as well as it actually does in practice.
I have in fact merged most of the Redhat v3 (from the source rpm) patches
not only the LDAP patch. I hope that you guys and the folks that created
them are not unhappy with that. There is still some more work to do on the
init script but I think the Redhat one is better than the original.
Doesn't sound like much but I can assure you it was a lot of work on and
of over that last 2 years.
I am not in a position to take on merging of any other patches until I am
happy with the quality/stability of my latest changes but I am certainly
interested.
>
> Do you maintain a CVS tree or similar repository? If not, I'd be happy to
> help spin up a SourceForge project for this work.
I had a local CVS tree here at home for a while but it proved to be more
trouble than benefit.
I have been thinking I will need to setup a CVS repository to support
the maintenance effort but have not done anything about it yet.
But making the patched source available on a public hosting site like
Sourceforge would be much better. Yes I would appreciate that but lets
wait until I am happy with the current changes.
Thanks again.
--
,-._|\ Ian Kent
/ \ Perth, Western Australia
*_.--._/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
v Web: http://themaw.net/
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
